Unsettling planning theory

Abstract

Recent political developments in many parts of the world seem likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the planetary-scale challenges of social polarization, inequality and environmental change societies face. In this unconventional multi-authored essay, we therefore seek to explore some of the ways in which planning theory might respond to the deeply unsettling times we live in. Taking the multiple, suggestive possibilities of the theme of unsettlement as a starting point, we aim to create space for reflection and debate about the state of the discipline and practice of planning theory, questioning what it means to produce knowledge capable of acting on the world today. Drawing on exchanges at a workshop attended by a group of emerging scholars in Portland, Oregon in late 2016, the essay begins with an introduction section exploring the contemporary resonances of ‘unsettling’ in, of and for planning theory. This is followed by four, individually authored responses which each connect the idea of unsettlement to key challenges and possible future directions. We end by calling for a reflective practice of theorizing that accepts unsettlement but seeks to act knowingly and compassionately on the uneven terrain that it creates.

Pestilence in Planning: Why Camus is a Beacon for Our Times

“…This is a missed opportunity. In an era of constantly unfolding crises stemming from a range of ecological socio-political dynamics that place new demands on planning (Barry et al, 2018;Osborne, 2018), the relevance of The Plague goes beyond viral pandemic (Vulliamy, 2015): it cuts to the core questions of how actors such as planners might act, and how cities might shape and be shaped by complex phenomena.…”

Hear the Rime of the Fellow Mariner? A Letter to the Next Generation of Emphatic Co-Creators in Planning

“…Such understanding of planners' everyday activities has been important in moving away from the traditional rational model of planning, recognizing that knowing and acting (Davoudi, 2015), as well as knowing and feeling, are closely interwoven (Westin, 2016). Although emotional dimensions of these everyday experiences are mentioned in some studies of planners' values, only recently has planning scholarship explicitly discussed the integral role of emotions in planners' activities (Barry et al, 2018;Baum, 2015a;Ferreira, 2013;Hoch, 2006;Lyles et al, 2017;Porter et al, 2012).…”

“…More than this, it is not just the existence of this variety of emotional states, but also that individual planners might have to jump from highly pleasant to unpleasant states of mind from one hour to the next in the course of a single day. Finally, as we know that planners think and act as members of groups and communities, (Baum, 1987(Baum, , 2015b, relational, in addition to affective, dimensions of knowledge production need to be understood (Barry et al, 2018).…”

“…If we fail to understand these important aspects of organizational (un)learning, institutional transformation will overlook organizational governance approaches for dynamic and interactive change (Ansell & Trondal, 2018). At the root of the change in understanding of planners' everyday lives, lies a shift from an ontology of being to an ontology of becoming, continuing a commitment to the unsettling of our ways of knowing in planning (Barry et al, 2018). Thus, instead of focusing on end-states, institutional transformation would account for both the subconscious and revealed socio-emotional relations (Albrechts et al, 2019), shaping perceptions, understanding, intentions, and commitment (Hoch, 2017).…”

Beyond the post-political: Exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning

“…Since the uprisings in 2011, the election of Donald Trump in the United States, Brexit, extreme weather events associated with climate change and the rise of alt-right and left movements, conflict in cities perpetuated by the inequality produced in the production of urban environments has reached a new level of intensity. This intensity, a product of spatial and social inequality, is generating new questions about how urban planning, planning practitioners and planning theory might respond to this changing context (Barry et al, 2018; Rivero, 2017; Trapenberg Frick et al, 2018).…”